On 7/30/2011 4:12 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:47:50 -0800, Pat
wrote:

Note again, that Pat's description is not the same as ESA's proposal.
ESA only wants to marry Orion/MPCV with the ATV's service module. The
pressurized MPLM-like module is not included. There is no way to get
from the MPCV to the pressurized module even if it were, without
cutting a hatch through the heat shield like Gemini 1,

Or docking to it nose-first, and have accelerations be eyeballs-out.
Note that the painting shows the MPCV in orbit with an attached service
module as it approaches the ATV, so I assume that's the idea.

Wait. What... huh? The painting on SpaceflightNow in your original
message is a NASA rendition of Orion at Mars, nothing about it is ESA.
It even predates the cancellation of Constellation and the advent of
MPCV. Note the solar panels are Lockheed's pizza pan type, not the
X-wing type of ATV. It appears to be Orion transferring between two
Mars transit ships (I know not why.)

ESA's proposal is to replace the Orion Service Module (with its
engines and pizza pan solar panels) with the Service Module from ATV
(with its engines and four "x-wing" solar panels.) Since it is
existing, they say this will save time.

It actually might; has any work been done on the Orion service module at
all? At least it's built and operational.

But I suspect the long pole in
the MPCV tent is the Command Module, not the Service Module, so I
don't think it would really make much difference. And integrating
ESA's ATV SM into Orion/MPCV would probably cost about as much as
paying Lockheed to finish its own SM.

I still think the idea of sticking the core stage of the Ariane V atop
the Ares I SRB-derived booster as the "Liberty" is one of the oddest
things I've ever seen.
But, you know...if you could shoot a ATV into orbit with an Ariane V
that, had extra fuel and supplies in it, then launch an MPCV into orbit
with whatever is chosen to carry it...you could stick a spacecraft
together that would use the ATV to leave orbit and head towards the
asteroid target, and use the MPCV SM engine to return it to Earth after
leaving the asteroid and ditching the ATV. That might be fairly cheap
and possible. One problem is reentry velocity, which from an asteroid
will be pretty high (at least as high as from the Moon in the Apollo
program) which means a very heavy heatshield using the present
Orion/MPCV RV aerodynamics that are based on the Apollo CM.
Unless you want to make two separate heatshields that can be fitted to
the MPCV, the one for LEO use will be far heavier than it needs to be,
which was one of the main problems with using the Apollo CSM for the
Skylab flights; the CM's heatshield was unnecessarily robust and heavy
for LEO use, and the SM had way too much internal fuel capacity and
giant engine also for LEO use.
Put on a thinner heatshield and a far smaller SM engine (you could use
the LM ascent engine as a retro motor) and you could have cut down total
spacecraft weight by at least 1/3, maybe as much as 1/2.
The Orion CM design reminded me of the X-24 clone for the ISS lifeboat;
both showed a terrible lack of imagination and innovation on the part of
their designers, who seemed to be more interested in cloning the past
than moving onto using new designs with 40+ years of experience to learn
from.
Went to "Captain America" last night and saw scenes from the new
"Spiderman" movie...same old story, being redone again pretty quickly
after the original...but seriously reimagined - this time Mary Jane has
blond hair.
Same lack of original imagination being demonstrated.

Pat